In Wisconsin (as is the case in about 15 other states) the burden is on the prosecution to disprove a defendant's self-defense claim - this paired with the legal standard of proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt is the highest burden we have in criminal cases. So here, Rittenhouse didn't even have to prove self-defense, it was the prosecution's heavy burden to disprove his self-defense claims.

Further complicating the legal standard of "what would a reasonably prudent person do in the defendant's position" is the fact that he was 17 at a time. So were the jurors using a subjective standard of a grown adult or a 17 year old? I think those yield different results.

Given the fact pattern here and applicable Wisconsin law, this was always a very difficult case to prove as it pertains to the homicide charges vis-à-vis self-defense. But the reckless endangerment/weapons possession charges are a different story and I think the defendant's guilt was far more ascertainable as to those charges.

>If you listen to what David Henderson said at the very end
>
>"the law allows you to consider whether he should have backed
>down."

You can consider that - but there is no "stand your ground" law in Wisconsin. So a person does not have to exhaust all other options before resorting to deadly force in self-defense. There's no duty to retreat either.

Again, very high burden the prosecution carries here. This is why most legal experts weren't surprised at this outcome. Now, what this outcome says from a social perspective about the disparities in outcomes and how different defendants are treated has to be discussed - because there's no way an Arab or Black man stepping into a MAGA rally armed with an assault rifle and killing multiple people would get this level of deference (and dare I say affinity) from this judge.

The social analysis in the aftermath of this is complicated and reflective of the disparities and inequities in our criminal justice system - but the legal elements re: self-defense here are less complicated.